Because we couple it "without confusion", if you want to get technical, then the weeping, dying in and bleeding occurred through His human nature and the rising from the dead and reigning in Glory occurred through His divine nature, and the walking on water through both--in the same way that if I say "I walked", technically it was my legs that made motions across the ground, not my brain or my fingertips.

The COE likes to "get technical".

Yeah. That's how Nestorius got in trouble....

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.

The EO's, however, did accept the Theopaschite formula in their fifth council. The Assyrians still reject it, from what I understand. Also, as pointed out above, the OO's refer to Christ alone in the Trisagion. The EO's address the Trisagion to the Holy Trinity. I don't know whether the Assyrians address that hymn to the Holy Trinity or to Christ alone. I would be interested in knowing, however, if Rafa could tell us.

We do not refuse to confess the difference, God forbid! But we flee from this, that we should divide the one Christ in a duality of natures after the union. For if he is divided, the properties of each one of the natures are divided at the same time with him, and what is its own will cling to each one of them. But when a hypostatic union is professed, of which the fulfilment is that from two there is one Christ without confusion, one person, one hypostasis, one nature belonging to the Word incarnate. (I. Torrance, Christology After Chalcedon, Canterbury Press, 1988, p151)

What Severus, and Cyril, strive so hard to prevent is a division of Christ such that there is a human and a God. This is the essence of Nestorianism. In this passage Severus shows the strength of his feeling that we must absolutely confess that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are different things. There is no room for a Eutychian confusion of humanity and Divinity. This recognition of the difference of the nature is not what we object to. What we object to is creating a duality of natures, which does not mean the destruction of the difference between them, rather it means setting up two independent centres of existence, the humanity and the Divinity, and these independent centres of existence destroy the union. It is a hypostatic union that ensures the real union of these different natures. This passage makes clear that firstly, a hypostatic union does not introduce confusion between the humanity and the Divinity; secondly, that 'one nature belonging to the Word incarnate' does not mean either a confused divine/human nature nor does it mean that the humanity is swallowed up by the Divinity; thirdly, the passage makes plain that the union is one in which the different natures have their differences preserved but within one concrete existence, that of the Incarnate Christ, and not preserved independently as the Son of God and a man united in some external manner. The 'duality of natures' which is rejected is not the reality of the humanity and Divinity, but a division between them which destroys the union. What is required is a union which makes One Christ of the two without confusion of either.

It was Cyril, as Severus quotes, who had said that:

The properties of the Word became properties of manhood, and those of manhood, properties of the Word. For thus one Christ and Son and Lord is understood. (I. Torrance, Christology After Chalcedon, Canterbury Press, 1988, p151)

In other words, hypostatic union means a union between concrete realities (human and divine natures of Christ) without confusion and without separation in one concrete reality of the Logos Incarnate.

God bless.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 03:14:39 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

That's the entire point. The Logos never changed into anything at any time because God does not change:

Quote

I am the LORD, and I do not change.

Malachi 3:6

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).

Quote

How does the ACOE deal with the verse from the Gospel of John?

"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

To give you an idea of how great a problem this is, the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us.

There you go....Isa agrees with me himself ! The Logos did not turn into flesh, he rested by us humans. This is what Isaiah 11 is talking about:

Quote

Isaiah 11

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Docetism is the position that Christ never had a real body and that the crucifixion was an illusion. I obviously never held to such a position.

Please note both Assyrians and Chalcedonians reject the Theopaschite clause (who was crucified for us) in the Trisagion.

The EO's, however, did accept the Theopaschite formula in their fifth council. The Assyrians still reject it, from what I understand. Also, as pointed out above, the OO's refer to Christ alone in the Trisagion. The EO's address the Trisagion to the Holy Trinity. I don't know whether the Assyrians address that hymn to the Holy Trinity or to Christ alone. I would be interested in knowing, however, if Rafa could tell us.

Chalcedonians did not accept the Theopaschite clause and Rome removed it from the books of the Orientals who entered into union, although it has returned. When Peter the Fuller inserted it, it was with the intention of bolstering miaphysitism.

So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?

Chalcedonians did not accept the Theopaschite clause and Rome removed it from the books of the Orientals who entered into union, although it has returned. When Peter the Fuller inserted it, it was with the intention of bolstering miaphysitism.

He inserted it with the intention of protecting against Nestorianism, which at that time was kind of the same thing as "bolstering miaphysitism." Later, as I said, the Chalcedonians adopted the Theopaschite formula at Contantinople II, showing that one can believe in "two natures" and still have a Cyriliian Christology. The COE still rejects it, though.

So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?

Our Father among the saints John Chrysostom and the Prophet Isaiah.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That's the entire point. The Logos never changed into anything at any time because God does not change:

Quote

I am the LORD, and I do not change.

Malachi 3:6

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).

Quote

How does the ACOE deal with the verse from the Gospel of John?

"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."

To give you an idea of how great a problem this is, the Peshitta reads:ܘܡܠܬܐ ܒܤܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܓܢ ܒܢ which literally is "Word-the Flesh-the he-was and-he-abided/rested in/by-us.

There you go....Isa agrees with me himself ! The Logos did not turn into flesh, he rested by us humans.

In idiomatic English "The Word was flesh and abided/rested in/by us." Flesh has blood. The Word was flesh, so He had blood.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So now, besides having the golden tongued at my left side bolstering my cause (since he was taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the interpreter of the COE) I now have the Prophet Isaiah himself at my right. Who challenges me ?

Dude--St. John Chrysostom came into the discussion because minisoliman showed that he disagreed with you:"... to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily XLIV

I don't know if the issue is that St. John had less contact with Theodore than you're assuming, if he misunderstood Theodore on this point, if he forgot that Theodore was wrong on this point, or if you are misundersting Theodore on this point. But St. John quite clearly believed that God had blood.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I never said God did not have blood, only the Logos is not made of flesh and blood because he cannot change (he is an invisible spirit which does not change as per his own words pronounced via the Prophet Malachi). God owns all the blood in the world, he has asked us not to eat it because it is holy to him. The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos. Further, the fact remains that Chrysostom was taught by the interpreter of the COE which agrees with the theology I am expressing. Either Chrysostom agreed with his teacher or he introduced a spurious new teaching not worth studying.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

The Messiah is a person with the Logos dwelling within him with no intermingling with the humanity. The prophet Isaiah said so. This is not the same as a Saint because the FULL Godhead dwelled within the Messiah, the Seven Spirits of God (Isaiah 11).

By the way, your interpretation counts as human sacrifice by the Torah of the Jews of Jesus's time which he kept, while mine counts as an offering to God of the highest order (A Qurbana or Korban).

If the Logos held blood at any one point in time (incarnate= Logos BECAME flesh) his Essence changed and the scripture lies broken. Therefore the reading of Acts 20:28 which I posited is correct, the only reason we don't have manuscripts dating before the 5th century is because the COE burns all manuscripts too old or in tatters to be used in its Churches (like the jews who bury their manuscripts).

You're using your predetermined conclusion to prove that our reading of Acts 20:28 must be incorrect. This is not what I asked for, since your conclusion that the Logos never held blood is itself currently under fire. If you fail in defending this thesis, then your attack on our reading of Acts 20:28 falls apart as well, since you will have been shown to be basing your attack on a flimsy premise.

What I want to see is original manuscripts that show the "correct" wording of Acts 20:28, manuscripts you have conveniently put out of our reach by asserting that they no longer exist.

I never said God did not have blood, only the Logos is not made of flesh and blood because he cannot change (he is an invisible spirit which does not change as per his own words pronounced via the Prophet Malachi). God owns all the blood in the world, he has asked us not to eat it because it is holy to him. The Messiah offered his blood as a holy Qurbana but not the Logos.

Then either it wasn't Christ's to offer, or it was, as God Himself.

Quote

Further, the fact remains that Chrysostom was taught by the interpreter of the COE which agrees with the theology I am expressing. Either Chrysostom agreed with his teacher or he introduced a spurious new teaching not worth studying.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Messiah is a person with the Logos dwelling within him with no intermingling with the humanity.

Thank you for now revealing your true colors. There's no way any Orthodox Christian can hold to this Nestorian Christology, since we believe that only God can save but can do so only by becoming fully one of us. You have essentially deprived us of the means of our salvation. Mankind is utterly lost in your Christology.

Wrong. God Saves. He accepted the suffering and obedience of the human nature of his son as a sacrifice, he allows us to partake of the divine nature through adoption since we can identify ourselves with his Son who kept his commands. So God does save, only not in the way your teaching.

The Messiah is the Logos dwelling side by side with the fragile human nature. At no point did the Logos change its essence into anything than it ever was before. The Logos cannot change (Malachi 3:6). we are not Muslims, our beliefs must be consistent, no "progressive revelation" please.

The Messiah is the Logos dwelling side by side with the fragile human nature. At no point did the Logos change its essence into anything than it ever was before. The Logos cannot change (Malachi 3:6). we are not Muslims, our beliefs must be consistent, no "progressive revelation" please.

This isn't progressive. St. John Chrysostom's Bible showed that God having blood was a belief. No one here, neither Eastern or Oriental Orthodox believes that the human and divine natures of Christ were altered, changed, or absorbed in anyway, but we also ascribe that the Messiah is the Logos, not a person with a Logos dwelling in him. It is because that the Messiah is precisely the Logos that we say God has blood and the the Virgin Mary is the Theotokos. If the Messiah is not Logos, but a "person with a Logos dwelling within Him" then that is blasphemy and our salvation is lost.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

The Messiah is the Logos, he has a human nature too not a single nature. The Logos did not change into human flesh, he is a spirit:

Quote

John 4:24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Please read Isaiah 11 which I posted above. This was the Christology of the First Christians who were also called "Yessians" because they used Isaiah 11 as their Christology ("From the root of Yesse..."). Christians were also called "Nazarenes" which is derived from "Netzer" which means sprout. The Fullness of the Godhead dwelled in the Messiah, the Messiah IS God, but he has two natures just like the Orthodox faith of Chalcedon states.

There's nothing to "squirmish" about- the Prophet Isaiah said the Messiah would have the 7 spirits (attributes) of God in him. The apostle Paul said the same in the book of Colossians :

Quote

Beware, lest any man make you naked by philosophy, and by vain deception, according to the doctrines of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to the Messiah, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Divinity corporeally.

Colossians 2:9

The Messiah has the fullness of God in his Body. He is God, our point to the infinite one whose essence we cannot know directly except via him. He will judge us when we die, and none can know the Father except him.

Quote

John 14:8-11 (New International Version)

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

you guys should study a little bit the Jewish Mysticism St. John was familiar with when he wrote Revelation. Read about "Adam Kadmon". Revelation even ends with a vision of the tree of life.

Beware, lest any man make you naked by philosophy, and by vain deception, according to the doctrines of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to the Messiah, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Divinity corporeally.

Which verse is the above quoting. I would like to compare it to the original.

(Byzantine Christology defines hypostasis as prosopon (as self) while the concretion of ousia is physis).

Disclaimer: I do not consider either Assyrians or Oriental Orthodox heretics.

Neither do I, or EOs or RCs for that matter. What matters is to me is this conclusion - that the person Yeshua the Messiah is 100% divine and at the same time 100% human, and ALL these churches (from what I can see) do come to this conclusion ultimately. How you get to this conclusion is interesting but IMO not as important as the conclusion itself.

The Byzantine fathers rejected the term prosopon because they considered it a weak term just as they rejected the term miaphysis. Prosopon was considered unsuitable because it did not imply the unity of the person stongly enough to them.

Interesting. It seems that the Byzantines and OOs are especially concerned with how Messiah's humanity and divinity are united, while the COE is not concerned with this, they just believe that they are united but don't go into the specifics of how they are united. But they are very concerned with the divinity and humanity not being "mixed together" or the divine nature not being confused with the human nature and vice versa.

Miaphysis was rejected because they considered it did not distinguish between the natures strongly enough and could be interpreted as Christ being 50% human 50% divine.

Fr. Deacon Lance

For those who don't know the difference between mia and monos yes Miapysitism can be grossly misinterpreted, and it wasn't until a Copt of Peshitta.org compared monos with yakhid and mia with ekhad that I was able to see this crucial difference. I've told Salpy before on a another thread that the distinction between the divinity and humanity that Miaphysitism makes is not clear enough to my own liking but it's still clear enough for me to see that it's there.

The difference is that when we 'get technical', we still affirm that it was God Incarnate who wept, died, bled, hungered by virtue of His humanity, and that it was God Incarnate who rose from the dead and reigns in glory by virtue of His divinity.

Our problem with what you're saying is that you refuse to attribute the properties of humanity to the divine Person: God Incarnate.

Let me be clear about something. What I've been trying to present on this thread is what I've learnt about the Christology of the COE - NOT the Christology that I personally hold. The Christology I personally hold is similar to that of the COE (from what I know about theirs) but I don't know enough about their Christology to declare mine identical to theirs. This thread is about the COE not about me, when I'm talking about the COE I'm talking about them not me.

Mar Babai the Great said the qnoma means: "A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized". Qnoma means "individuation" it NEVER means "individual", I know that it sounds like the same thing in English but it's not.[/quote]

Well I'm concerned with the meaning of qnoma before the Syrian Orthodox Church started trying to bring it into line with some Greek word. Because the COE didn't do that, and again this thread is about them.

That's why I want to go back to the time before the first Council of Nicaea - to what these Greek words use to mean because the COE's understanding of the Aramaic words in their terminology (which is older than the other Aramaic churches) seems to correspond a lot more closely with the older meanings of the Greek words, but I need to make sure.

Be careful, as the older meanings were condemned as heretical, e.g. homoousios.

I've heard that about homoousios too. OK then give me the older meanings and state which ones were considered heretical and why. I'll follow your advice concerning this.

Good enough to me despite the limitations of the Greek language to the semitic original. God in the flesh, not God turning into flesh. What are the "Deeds of the Flesh" and the "Deeds of the Spirit" according to St.Paul in Galatians by the way?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My apologies actually you didn't "approve" of my Peshitta, you just linked to it if I am correct. The SOC and COE have their own versions. By the way, nobody here has as of yet explained to me why the oldest sect of Christians in India (the St.Thomas Christians) hold to the same readings the COE does. I wonder why...

Good enough to me despite the limitations of the Greek language to the semitic original. God in the flesh, not God turning into flesh. What are the "Deeds of the Flesh" and the "Deeds of the Spirit" according to St.Paul in Galatians by the way?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE. This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument. The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus, I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.

Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE. This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument. The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus, I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.

The proof for the COE tampering the reading in Acts 20:28 is silence - i.e. there is no proof. While the evidence that the COE Peshitta reading for Acts 20:28 is the original reading is lacking, such is not the case for the COE Peshitta reading of Hebrews 2:9.

There is no proof that the COE ever altered any of their texts, when it comes to scribal work the COE's slate is clean, the same cannot be said for the other textual transmissions.

St.Irenaus of Lyons (an Assyrian just like Tatian and Justin Martyr) cited Eastern Syriac. Look at all his quotations in "Against all Heresies" and you will see it reflects more the COE tradition than the SOC. Jerome cites Hebrews 2:9 of COE Peshitta as well. Comments?

Nobody has also given to me an answer on the issue of a degree of separation in the Messiah between his Divinity and his humanity:

Quote

Your Will, Not Mine! Mark 14:36

You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right? That is blasphemy, worse than anything I ever read the muslims or jews write.

You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right? That is blasphemy, worse than anything I ever read the muslims or jews write.

As someone already said, the Son was speaking to the Father. I think your Sabellian understanding of the Trinity is part of the reason why you seem unable or unwilling to understand our view of Christ.

St.Irenaus of Lyons (an Assyrian just like Tatian and Justin Martyr) cited Eastern Syriac. Look at all his quotations in "Against all Heresies" and you will see it reflects more the COE tradition than the SOC. Jerome cites Hebrews 2:9 of COE Peshitta as well. Comments?

St. Irenaeus was Greek, and wrote in Greek, to his Greek speaking Diocese.

Quote

Nobody has also given to me an answer on the issue of a degree of separation in the Messiah between his Divinity and his humanity:

Quote

Your Will, Not Mine! Mark 14:36

St. Maximos did.

Quote

You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right?

We don't. It's "Himself," btw.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't know what you mean by 'won the argument'? The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches do not accept the Nestorianism you have been espousing here, so the COE did not 'win the argument' in the sense of convincing anybody else (except, apparently, modern Rome?) that Nestorianism was correct.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

I'm actually not sure on Irenaus but many of the early patristic fathers were Assyrian. Isa, like I said before- I like you man. However how can you say the entire trinity died? I am not Sabellian either, only in the COE the Logos and Holy spirit are the same with the Holy spirit the power of God. By the way, Ambrose agreed with my reading of Acts 20:28. That with Jerome citing Peshitta Hebrews 2:9 is sufficient to convince all Roman Catholics here that I am right. Two pillars agreed with me on this.

Isa, entire libraries exist on the Jacobite "God has blood" versus the "Messiah has" blood argument of the COE. This one went on for a LONG time before the COE won the argument. The priests of the COE are more qualified to debate this. If I can't appeal to Eastern Syriac which was untampered by the Monophysites (nobody here is a monophysite hopefully before I am warned) this will be difficult. Its like debating someone on the bible but only being able to cite the Quran. I already showed that someone tampered with Hebrews 1:3 in Vaticanus, I see no reason why the same people who tried doing that wouldn't try to doctor Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28. Also Sinaiticus had a story of a saint scribbled on its back. To this day the COE doesn't throw out books with its holy symbol on it or recycle manuscripts, it places them in libraries or burns them.

The proof for the COE tampering the reading in Acts 20:28 is silence - i.e. there is no proof. While the evidence that the COE Peshitta reading for Acts 20:28 is the original reading is lacking, such is not the case for the COE Peshitta reading of Hebrews 2:9.

There is no proof that the COE ever altered any of their texts, when it comes to scribal work the COE's slate is clean, the same cannot be said for the other textual transmissions.

Now THAT's an argument from silence.

We have the evidence that the reading was "God," which PHYSICALLY (i.e. not dependent on later, literary evidence) shows the reading "God." Showing a 11th century text, and claiming it shows the original text doesn't trump that.

I didn't get to look over the post on Hebrews 2:9.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You cannot surely believe Jesus is talking to himself here right? That is blasphemy, worse than anything I ever read the muslims or jews write.

As someone already said, the Son was speaking to the Father. I think your Sabellian understanding of the Trinity is part of the reason why you seem unable or unwilling to understand our view of Christ.

I'm actually not sure on Irenaus but many of the early patristic fathers were Assyrian.

You mean Aramaic speakers or of the Assyrian nationality? Both are true, but I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Assyrian as in theology, i.e. Nestorian? No.

Quote

Isa, like I said before- I like you man. However how can you say the entire trinity died?

St. Paul says so in Phillipians.

Quote

I am not Sabellian either, only in the COE the Logos and Holy spirit are the same with the Holy spirit the power of God. By the way, Ambrose agreed with my reading of Acts 20:28. That with Jerome citing Peshitta Hebrews 2:9 is sufficient to convince all Roman Catholics here that I am right. Two pillars agreed with me on this.

LOL. Jerome overturned the boundary mark the Fathers had set up, translated from a Hebrew text (and NOT, btw, a Syriac text: we have plenty of information from Jerome on that), rather than the LXX. He accepted ordination from a supposed patriarch of Antioch, whose line died out and it not claimed by any of the 4 patriarchs the Vatican claims for Antioch. He was also one of the very few who agreed with the deposition of St. John Chrysostom, from which the guilty repented.

Btw, what the Vatican says doesn't interest us, OO or EO. Though Rome was right in condemning Nestorius at the Third Ecumenical Council.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

We have the evidence that the reading was "God," which PHYSICALLY (i.e. not dependent on later, literary evidence) shows the reading "God." Showing a 11th century text, and claiming it shows the original text doesn't trump that.

Actually the earliest Greek mss say "the Lord" not "God", if no tampering occured all the Greek mss would say the same thing but they do not. The fact is the Greek mss vary between "the Lord" or "God" or "the Lord and God" in that verse, and this demands an explanation.